Hawaii County committee postpones Waimea rezoning after hours of testimony

The Hawaii County Committee on Legislative Approvals and Acquisitions on Feb. 25 postponed action on bills 198 and 199, which would change the state land use boundary and county zoning for a 5.349‑acre parcel in Waimea (South Kohala) to allow three neighborhood commercial lots on Mamalahoa Highway and five 0.5‑acre residential/agriculture lots. After more than two hours of public comment—largely opposed—the committee voted to defer the matter to the call of the chair so members, the applicant and community representatives can continue discussions.

The proposal by the Metzler family would restore a commercial frontage on Mamalahoa Highway and reclassify the rear of the parcel to state land use rural and county residential‑agricultural 0.5 acres, according to the bills. Applicant Joni Metzler said the family has owned and worked the property for about 23 years, has secured deposits with the Department of Water Supply for 20 water commitments, and “agree[s] to all the conditions attached to bills 198 and 199,” including complying with county construction and flood‑zone standards.

Supporters and opponents framed the debate around competing priorities. Supporters and the applicant said the request matches the Waimea design plan and county planning maps and argued small commercial spaces and half‑acre lots would serve local needs. Opponents said the change would erode prime agricultural soils, worsen existing traffic congestion on the Mauna Loa/Mamalahoa corridor and accelerate gentrification. Multiple speakers said the parcel lies on some of the island’s most fertile soil and urged protecting it for food production.

Resident testifiers described a sustained and mainly opposed public record. Ekalani (Kalani) Flores, who said he reviewed planning‑commission materials, told the committee there were “nearly 900” written submissions opposing the project across earlier hearings and described the request as “spot zoning.” Several other speakers said more than 50 local residents had submitted letters of support for the applicant, while dozens of Waimea residents testified in person against the bills at recent community meetings.

Planning staff and the applicant's consultants told the committee the proposal is consistent with the County of Hawaii General Plan, the community development plan for South Kohala, and the Waimea design plan in placing limited commercial uses along that segment of Mamalahoa Highway. Attorney Catherine Garson and planning consultant Darren Arai said the bills include conditions the applicant must meet — traffic mitigation, Department of Transportation requirements for driveway access and other standard controls — and that the applicant is willing to accept those conditions.

Committee members sought a path to address core concerns raised by residents. Council member James Eustace, who represents the district, said he had convened a community meeting two nights earlier and asked for concrete, community‑proposed modifications the applicant might accept. Multiple members urged exploring partnerships or affordability commitments tied to any residential lots; Council member Ashley Kirkowitz asked whether an affordable‑housing vehicle such as a land trust could be involved if the project moved forward.

At the end of the meeting the committee voted to postpone both bills to the call of the chair so council members, the director of planning, the applicant and community representatives can pursue additional discussions and possible definable conditions. Chair Heather Kimball said she will serve as the point of contact for community proposals and instructed interested parties to submit suggested, specific conditions within the week to allow staff and the applicant to test feasibility.

The postponement was taken after a motion to move the bills forward on first reading had been placed on the floor earlier in the agenda (a motion to recommend passage had been made at introduction). The committee did not vote on first reading; instead the postponement motion passed by voice vote with seven members recorded in favor and two absent/excused. The committee recorded no final rezoning or state land use boundary change at this meeting.

Next steps: the committee will accept concrete, written ideas from the community and the applicant via the chair; the bills remain pending and will return when the chair determines further deliberation is ready. Because the measures involve both a state land use boundary amendment and a change of county zoning, any amendment will require follow‑up actions and will remain subject to statutory processes and conditions specified in the bills if moved forward.

Quotes in this article are drawn from the meeting transcript and are attributed to speakers who testified at the committee meeting.